Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
ibe98765

Increase in spam?

Recommended Posts

Anyone else noticing an increase in spam mail these days? According to K9, I'm up to an average of 215 spam mails per day! :'( Luckily, almost none makes it into Outlook, so I never really see them. I bet the overall percent of internet bandwidth that spam is taking up must also be increasing significantly. Something needs to be done. I know there have been many suggestions here and on the net in past. I think the ONLY way this is going to stop is if we all have to pay to send email. I'm think that .005 (1/2 of 1 cent) per email might do the trick. If the typical user sends 200 emails per month, a charge of .005 cent per email would be a mere $1.00 extra per month - a pittance to be permanently rid of spam, I think. But the spammer would be on the hook for $5,000 for every 1,000,000 emails sent. That should be enough to take any profit out of that business. For legitimate marketers, this small charge would also encourage them to ensure that everyone on their lists were opt-in customers. We could kill two birds with one stone!Your thoughts?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am 100% against it. Why? I get (at the very most) 4 email spam messages per week. Should I have to pay extra because I don't give out my email address or have it posted anywhere on a websiti? I don't think so. Also, I average much more than the 200 sent messages a week.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IBE, The idea would make sense to many of us "casual users" who get 100's more junk mails than we do "real" email, but the reality is that there are many people who don't have spam problems and even out of those of us who do, 200 emails is a fairly light amount to be sending. I do agree that something has to be done, and you're probably on the right track as to what will end up happening. Charging a half-cent an email is IMO the perfect amount. To the average user, even someone like Stonegiant who sends out 200 emails a week, we're only talking $4.00 a month!!! Shoot, I'd pay that much a month just to know that every email I get is being paid for. The problem is who gets that money? Do the ISP's deserve it? NO. Does the government deserve it? Not really. So where would it go? Granted, it would probably end up as a tax, but I don't agree with that. It will also be a real pain to manage. Each hosting company that provided email accounts would have to keep track and charge each of its users, and all the people (especially kids) who have free accounts would just be SOL... I think you're on to something here, but the effort to put it into place might just be too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spam is a real problem. You can go here for the current percentage of spam being sent (it's near 75% of all mail monthly!): http://www.softscan.dk/english/statistikke...stik_spam_p.aspStoneGiant - consider yourself lucky. But even if you don't get much spam, many others do. Everyone, including yourself would also benefit (indirectly if not directly) from the reduction in spam via a reasonably small contribution to the cause instituted by an email sending fee. How? - Less spam means everyone, including ISP's will have more time to focus on more interesting and important problems. - There will be less viruses spread through email which benefits everyone.- Mail servers will crash less frequently. - All mail will be delivered faster and more reliably. - Money can be spent on quality infrastructure with better planning instead of just trying to react to the load. - ISP's and government agencies could virtually eliminate their spam management groups and instead use the people working these positions for better service.Who gets the extra money is an interesting question. Since it's my idea, I think I should get 50% of it. (can't blame me for trying...). :'( Realistically, it could be made a non-issue for the casual, everyday user. Let's say that ISP's lowered everyone's bill by some set amount, say $5. The typical user would not incur more than $5 in extra email charges each month, so his/her costs would remain the same or slightly lower. Meanwhile, the ISP's would actually be retaining more money, since they could reduce the number and frequency of infrastructure expansions and the number of people allocated to dealing with spam issues. Being a bit idealistic, I would hope that long-term, because of the lowered costs that ISP would incur, that they would allocate their extra monies to faster and wider broadband expansion or else lower average monthly costs for everyone. Since implementing a program like this would require Congressional action, they could mandate lower ISP fees or whatever it takes to get the bill passed, including requiring ISP's to offer some level of free accounts that could send a very limited number of email messages each month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, all those spammers have just moved to Mexico or Canada. Or they just hijack more web hosts and spam via someone elses domain costing the owner even more money. Charging per email is fixing a symptom, not the problem. Anytime you institute a blanket solution, you are hurting everyone, not just the one you are targetting. Even trying to charge for commercial emails (product and/or services selling) is still shotgunning. Fix the problem at the source and all the extra effort will not be required anymore. My 2¢

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, all those spammers have just moved to Mexico or Canada.  Or they just hijack more web hosts and spam via someone elses domain costing the owner even more money.  Charging per email is fixing a symptom, not the problem.  Anytime you institute a blanket solution, you are hurting everyone, not just the one you are targetting.  Even trying to charge for commercial emails (product and/or services selling) is still shotgunning.  Fix the problem at the source and all the extra effort will not be required anymore.  My 2¢
That is a point I haven't considered (off shore ISP's). I will have to give some thought on this.But since you aren't happy with my proposed solution and don't believe it would work, what would you propose instead? How are we going to "Fix the problem at the source..." as you suggest would be the best course? I'm looking for something that is realistic and possible to do. For starters, that eliminates anything that requires changing human nature or merely "educating people" not to buy from spammers in the hope the spammers will give up if they don't make any money. Criminal penalties and/or fines are also useless, since there isn't any effective way to enforce laws or collect fines across country boundaries. Looking forward to yours or anyone's response...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nowhere in my last did I say I knew how to fix it. B) Had I known, I would have said.That's why we have all the people with college educations. :D It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to pick someone else's plan apart. The thing that takes the smarts is to come up with the plan in the first place. (notice I'm not coming up with a plan :D )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got like 6 email accounts and only 1 gets spammed to death and that is cause that is the one I use on forms and web pages. I know I can close that account at anytime and not have spam, but that account does get a lot of spam.So keeping your email address as private as possible really helps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ibe,The problem with spam right now isn't that the mail is UCE or that people buy from spammers. The problem is that the mail is currrently easily spoofed so the end user has no real recourse to block or report abuse. Charging for email would require that our current email system be drasticly altered. If you going to do that I can offer methods of changing the system so that it would work WITHOUT anyone having to pay for email by the message.Simply require digitaly signed email. In order to send mail you would have to sign it and use a signed server. No valid digital signature and the mail is bounced. This would allow you to send all the spam you want but would allow the end user to know what the real server that sent the message is and the real email addess of the sender. You can then ask to be removed and even set your mail client to reject signed messags from Mr. X. and if he continues to send UCE then you can block the ISP or even have his key revoked.Simple problem, simple solution, but both methods would require major changes to the email structure. My method would allow for tracking and would allow for encryption of all email by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I got like 6 email accounts and only 1 gets spammed to death and that is cause that is the one I use on forms and web pages. I know I can close that account at anytime and not have spam, but that account does get a lot of spam.So keeping your email address as private as possible really helps.
It's that as possible that can do you in. I too am careful about giving out my e-mail address and use other accounts online to prevent spam from commercial sources. However, I have no control over legitimate users of my e-mail address who may get hit with an e-mail virus that "scrapes" their address book and picks up my address. Also, I resent having to train all of my e-mail unsavvy correspondents who send out jokes and web-links in a bulk-mailing in which the addressees e-mail addresses are visible to each other.As far as solutions go, I think that there has to be a re-engineering of how e-mail works. At the very least, spoofing of the sender's address ought to be made impossible. The phone company allows me to hide my phone number from caller-id, but I am not allowed to present a different phone number from my own. That's how e-mail should be. You can send anonymously, but I can reserve the right ot reject such mail. If you are not anonymous, then you are identified and that identification is not spoofed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ibe,The problem with spam right now isn't that the mail is UCE or that people buy from spammers.  The problem is that the mail is currrently easily spoofed so the end user has no real recourse to block or report abuse.  Charging for email would require that our current email system be drasticly altered.  If you going to do that I can offer methods of changing the system so that it would work WITHOUT anyone having to pay for email by the message.Simply require digitaly signed email.  In order to send mail you would have to sign it and use a signed server.  No valid digital signature and the mail is bounced.  This would allow you to send all the spam you want but would allow the end user to know what the real server that sent the message is and the real email addess of the sender.  You can then ask to be removed and even set your mail client to reject signed messags from Mr. X.  and if he continues to send UCE then you can block the ISP or even have his key revoked.Simple problem, simple solution, but both methods would require major changes to the email structure.  My method would allow for tracking and would allow for encryption of all email by default.
So effectively, EVERYONE would have to have a digital certificate? I'm sorry, but that has about as much chance of success as pigs flying. :rolleyes: We all know that the average user can't even figure out how to download AV or OS updates let alone manage a digital certificate to send email. Just imagine your typically AOL or MSN user trying this! :blink: A successful solution needs to be "behind the lines", invisible and requiring no maintenance on the users part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's that as possible that can do you in. I too am careful about giving out my e-mail address and use other accounts online to prevent spam from commercial sources. However, I have no control over legitimate users of my e-mail address who may get hit with an e-mail virus that "scrapes" their address book and picks up my address. Also, I resent having to train all of my e-mail unsavvy correspondents who send out jokes and web-links in a bulk-mailing in which the addressees e-mail addresses are visible to each other.As far as solutions go, I think that there has to be a re-engineering of how e-mail works. At the very least, spoofing of the sender's address ought to be made impossible. The phone company allows me to hide my phone number from caller-id, but I am not allowed to present a different phone number from my own. That's how e-mail should be. You can send anonymously, but I can reserve the right ot reject such mail. If you are not anonymous, then you are identified and that identification is not spoofed.
The problem is, how do you verify identity? Who does it? What is the standard? Remember, we are not just talking about people living inside the USA. There's a whole big world out there. Who verifies that Cho Liu in China is who they say they are?I know that it is against human nature to want to pay for anything that has been free, but if you all give my proposal deeper thought, I think you'll come to see that it is really the most promising approach with the least disruption to the system as it now exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So effectively, EVERYONE would have to have a digital certificate? I'm sorry, but that has about as much chance of success as pigs flying. We all know that the average user can't even figure out how to download AV or OS updates let alone manage a digital certificate to send email. Just imagine your typically AOL or MSN user trying this!A successful solution needs to be "behind the lines", invisible and requiring no maintenance on the users part.
I agree which is why this would require an overhaul of all the current client software. Only during INSTALL would a user have to worry about this. The certificate would be authenticated, without user intervention, by the processes of loging on. The end user wouldn't be prompted for passwords unless he turned on that function which would be off by default. Only if the user changed computers would this be an issue. ISPs could even cache the certificates on their severs and simply let the login process validate the end user. (This is how webmail might be used for this.) This method ISN'T intended to provide totally secure email, it would simply be a method to provide a correct method of IDing the sender and tracing it back to the domain holder. Who would be held responsable for it's users actions. If user "spamalot@hotmail.com" is sending out lots of signed UCE then hotmail can revoke his certificate or risk having its certificate revoked and having ALL hotmail users cut off.After I posted this I found another idea that is even better and easier to setup then signed email.SMTP+SPF Sender Premitted From: A proposal to add a new DNS record that identifies what IP numbers are legitmate senders for mail at "domian.com"
How SMTP+SPF Helps Oct 23 2003You ask SPF: "I have someone coming from a certain IP address. They claim to be a certain sender. Are they for real?"SPF will tell you one of four things: 1. The sender is good, the sender has previously announced that they do send mail from that IP address. 2. The sender is bad, the purported sender has published a list of IP addresses they send mail from, and the client IP isn't one of them. 3. The sender may be good or bad: the sender domain is in a transitional phase; it is methodically converting its users to be SPF compliant, so we should go easy on any violations for the present. 4. SPF doesn't know: the sender has not published any IP addresses, so the message could be legit, or it could not. SMTP without SPF cannot do that.For SPF to answer the question, domain owners have to designate which IP addresses send mail for their domains.For example, hotmail.com would publish a SPF list that includes 65.54.247.109, 216.33.241.106, and 207.68.163.86, which are all servers which you could reasonably expect to see a hotmail message coming from. But if someone connects from 80.34.201.194 and claims to be a hotmail sender, you would know better than to believe them, because that IP address isn't on the list.
This is currently in internet proposal phase and is hoping to become an RFC (Request for Comment). RFCs are the published rules of the internet and any mail server or client that would be RFC ##### compliant would be able to query a DNS sever to see if the IP number is real or not. This would have helped me a few weeks ago. I has some spammer Joe-job me. He send out mail under my domain name but not from my server. The IP numbers were from systems all over the world. with SMTP+SPF mail servers could have seen that I was not the real sender and bounced or tagged as probable forged this email. If forged email that is SPF checked is routinely bounced then such email would stop.The website that decribes all of this is located at http://spf.pobox.com/There are several big names that are looking at this.
Are people really going to use this?The SPF concept was born in early June 2003. A draft RFC is being written. It has been announced on Dave Farber's Interesting-People list, on the ASRG's mailing list, and on Slashdot.Already, large ISPs have expressed interest in adopting SPF, at least to the extent of publishing SPF records; since SPF-enabled MTAs are not yet widely available, that's about as much support as one can realistically expect to see from them.Qualcomm has expressed interest in SPF.qpsmtpd has adopted SPF.SpamAssassin will use SPF in version 2.70.ActiveState plans to support SPF in upcoming releases of PureMessage.DynDNS has altered the TXT configuration for its Custom DNS service to allow people to publish SPF records if they want to. If they don't want to, they don't have to.In the coming weeks, expect to see a "Timeline" section that tracks important developments, and an "Adopters" section that identifies important supporters. That news should help you make your decision about whether to adopt SPF in your organization.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or folks that use one account for sending email but have multiple email accounts so their sending server may be different from their email address' domain (personal, business, website webmaster accounts, etc.)?Some websites only allow all mail to be forwarded to your email account not sent through the domain name itself.And there are many other situations that would come into play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do all these Water Cooler threads end up here?

there are many people who don't have spam problems
There are many people who don't have accidents but are required to have insurance or to wear helmets and etc. The solution to SPAM is similar.
I got like 6 email accounts and only 1 gets spammed to death and that is cause that is the one I use on forms and web pages.
Try a@b.com. Many forms that require email addresses will accept anything in an email address format. If the email address is required for a password or something than obviously that address won't work but it works for me about 50% of the time.
It doesn't take a lot of intelligence to pick someone else's plan apart. The thing that takes the smarts is to come up with the plan in the first place.
Extremely accurate. But sitting around throwing stones at people's ideas trying to solve a problem doesn't accomplish much more than SPAM itself. Who was it that said if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all? :rolleyes: Someone proposed licensing PC users. I like that idea. Email verification and SPAM control could be a part of that process (along with Windows Updates and anti virus). People can't drive without a license, can't hunt without a license, can't even get married without one. No the licenses don't stop accidents, killed hunters or divorce but they're a starting point not an end. Imagine if the same requirements for using a pc were applied to cars, guns, airplanes, and etc. Anyone with money gets one, no training required, like a tv set or toaster. Well that's the situation today with pcs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually this is a Security and Networking topic.

Security and NetworkingProtecting PCs from attack, networking, network hardware, remote access, sharing broadband, different broadband technologies, network troubleshooting, spam, encryption, firewalls, and more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From nlinecomputers:

After I posted this I found another idea that is even better and easier to setup then signed email.SMTP,SPF Sender Premitted From: A proposal to add a new DNS record that identifies what IP numbers are legitmate senders for mail at "domian.com"
Interesting. But seems like only a feeble stopgap measure to me. Like caller ID, this "might" allow you to decide to accept or reject the mail, BUT it wouldn't stop the overall spam problem. I think it only adds more complexity to the net.Who does the SPF inquiry? The ISP or the user? I don't think that the ISP making the decision would be acceptable. Would the user have to maintain some form of white/black lists? Is the info in the SPF set according to the IP address of the ISP's SMTP server or the users login IP? What happens if the ISP adds a new SMTP server? They's have to update a global list someplace. Might mail be lost, delayed or rejected until they do this?Would dynamic IP login's be a problem? Would remote login's via a wireless hot point or through say someplace like Kinko's be a problem? If you go back through your ISP's SMTP server and it is their SMTP server IP address in the SPF info, then you might be okay in this instance. What if you are running your own SMTP server on your machine?Also, it is known that some ISP's accept spammer accounts because it brings them revenue. I think there was a past story somewhere about Worldcom being friendly to this type of practice. Wherever this occurs, the spammer would be able to send his mail free and clear through a registered SMTP server.Lot of questions on this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Read the website. It addresses all of that. Mostly this would be done by the ISP. This would be a change done by the domain holders. For example If I set my DNS records with this new SPF record I could declare what server is the real server that is sending mail for my domain.

Would dynamic IP login's be a problem? Would remote login's via a wireless hot point or through say someplace like Kinko's be a problem? If you go back through your ISP's SMTP server and it is their SMTP server IP address in the SPF info, then you might be okay in this instance.
Correct. This has nothing to do with where/what IP you log in on. Just what smtp server your mail is sent from.
What if you are running your own SMTP server on your machine?
Not a problem if you set the proper DNS records. This is no different then your POP severs. For mail to properly be delivered you got to have a known place for the email to land at. Called an A record and a MX record. This just brings the same rules to sending email. For email to be sent you've got to have the server recorded in DNS.
Also, it is known that some ISP's accept spammer accounts because it brings them revenue. I think there was a past story somewhere about Worldcom being friendly to this type of practice. Wherever this occurs, the spammer would be able to send his mail free and clear through a registered SMTP server.
And your point? With SPF the real server couldn't be spoofed and then legal action and proper blacklisting could happen much easier. No Joe-jobing. Also this would be optional. No one is required to use it. No one is required to use port 25 for SMTP either but it real hard for you to send mail if you don't. Same rules apply here. Fail to use SFP and you risk mail being ignored or even bounced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Actually this is a Security and Networking topic.
Security and NetworkingProtecting PCs from attack, networking, network hardware, remote access, sharing broadband, different broadband technologies, network troubleshooting, spam, encryption, firewalls, and more.
I understand your point I just don't agree that SPAM has anything to do with "Protecting PCs from attack, networking, network hardware, remote access, sharing broadband, different broadband technologies, network troubleshooting, ... encryption, firewalls,". Just like web development threads were moved to a new forum maybe this item should be moved also. Maybe a new Forum called Email Issues since there is no forum for those type of problems. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...But sitting around throwing stones at people's ideas trying to solve a problem doesn't accomplish much more than SPAM itself.  Who was it that said if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all?  :)...
That's why this is called a 'forum' and not a... uhh... (drawing a blank here)... a place where you can't question others' opinions. In a forum, others' thoughts are supposed to be scrutinized and picked apart. For example, I fully expect someone to pick apart my first sentence... :) :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Try a@b.com.  Many forms that require email addresses will accept anything in an email address format.  If the email address is required for a password or something than obviously that address won't work but it works for me about 50% of the time.
I've found that bob@bob.bob works about 98% of the time (give or take 5%... :) :) :) :) )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...But sitting around throwing stones at people's ideas trying to solve a problem doesn't accomplish much more than SPAM itself.  Who was it that said if you can't say anything nice don't say anything at all?  :)...
That's why this is called a 'forum' and not a... uhh... (drawing a blank here)... a place where you can't question others' opinions. In a forum, others' thoughts are supposed to be scrutinized and picked apart. For example, I fully expect someone to pick apart my first sentence... :) :)
{rant on}Yes, this is an open discussion forum. Any yes, it's easy to criticize but much more difficult to contribute positively to any discussion by giving equal thought and attention to possible solutions. This is a problem I've noticed throughout our society. If you listen closely to the media and to people around you, you'll find that much of the time, all that's talked about are "THE PROBLEMS". Few want to focus on solutions to "THE PROBLEMS" because that requires more thought and is a lot harder proposition. Which is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today, not only vis-a-vis the spam problem but with just about every other important issue in our society.{/rant off} (this should this be a valid HTML tag :) ) Anyway, trying to get back on topic...
http://spf.pobox.com/faq.html#dyndnsI don't control my DNS records directly.If you want to publish SPF records, I know that DynDNS and UltraDNS support TXT records; your registrar may too. Check with them.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------It doesn't really prevent spam. Spammers can always get throwaway domains, etc.Throwaway domains are the next step in the arms race. We can counter with: 1. fast automated blacklisting using spamtraps and attack detectors 2. simple reputation systems based on factors such as - age of domain according to whois - email profile of domain, eg. "too many unknown recipients" - call-back tests to see if the sender domain is able to receive mail. The reputation system can advise a receiving MTA to defer or reject. 3. legal methods following the paper trail of who paid for the domain. Here's an example of automated blacklisting in action:1. A spammer spams. The spam comes from an SPF-conformant domain. That domain is on a widely published sender-domain blacklist. The MTA rejects the message. That domain is a throwaway, just-registered domain, and does not yet appear on blacklists. The spam gets accepted by unsophisticated MTAs which do not use other traffic-analysis methods to impose a crude reputation system on unrecognized senders. The spam also gets accepted by automated spamtraps. The spamtraps add the domain to the blacklist. (advanced) Some time later, the user checks email. Immediately before the display phase, the MUA re-tests the message against the blacklists, and discards it. Thanks to the greater level of sender accountability, lawsuits may begin against the spammers, and registrars may be subpoenaed for domain owner information. SPF strengthens administrative and legal methods. The spam comes from a non-SPF-conformant domain. Initially, Most legitimate mail will fall into this category. Normal content filters get to do their job. The usual false-positive/false-negative results apply. Later, Most legitimate mail will be SPF-conformant. Some legitimate mail will not be SPF-conformant. SPF-conformant receivers SHOULD receive non-conformant mail but MAY choose to perform additional filtering on it. 2. Eventually, as SMTP improves its immunity to spam, we hope spammers will get discouraged.  (ibe - hope is not a strategy!)If the volume of spam decreases, legal and administrative approaches become more effective; right now they are simply swamped. If there are only 10 spammers in the world, law enforcement can focus on catching each one. If there are 10,000 spammers, law enforcement throws up its hands, calls it a societal problem, and says it doesn't have enough resources to tackle it.The spam domain was registered with a domain registrar. If the registrar is cooperative, we can find out from the registrar who the spammer was; and the registrar can stop accepting their registrations. If the registrar is uncooperative, or if a spammer buys and runs a registrar, we can default-blacklist all their domains, in a political move similar to SPEWS's approach. Alternatively, since spam is becoming increasingly illegal, we can subpoena the registrar to find out who registered the domain, and sue the spammer directly. If the spammer registered the domain using false information, we can still go back to the credit card. If the credit card was stolen, that's a crime which can be addressed using traditional means.
The author(s) of this SPF concept have clearly done a lot of work and given a lot of thought to extending and improving the system we have right now. But there are still a lot of if's but's and maybe's in the mix as can be seen from the quoted excerpt above. While well-meaning, I think it will only lead to other problems following the law of unintended consequences. What this looks like to me is a bandaid solution similar to what was done to the tax code. Because Congress, from a political viewpoint, doesn't want to start clean with the tax code, they keep looking for ways to patch on top of it. And we know what the results of that are. For example:
"Madam Speaker, the Lord's prayer is 66 words; the 10 Commandments, 179 words; the Gettysburg Address, 286 words; the Declaration of Independence, 1,322 words; the United States Tax Code, 2 million 8 hundred thousand plus words. It is out of control. In America, if a dog urinates in a parking lot, the EPA deems it a wetland. What is even worse, the IRS slaps on a hazardous waste tax. Beam me up here." - Rep. James Traficant (D-OH)
By adopting my comparatively simple proposal to charge a very small amount for sending email, we are GUARANTEED to stop the flow of spam almost immediately. It just becomes uneconomical to spam anymore. There is simply no better nor easier way to solve a problem like this than to hit them where it hurts most - in their pocketbook!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you may be right ibe98765, BUT, you know what happens when folks start getting charged for something (oh, let's say, income tax for instance), it just gets worse and worse and worse! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be impossible to charge for email without ditching the entire current email system. ANYBODY can run a smtp server, you don't need a fixed IP, nor a DNS record, or any other traceable function. If I can't trace it how can I bill it! Unless you propose to block all SMTP mail or just ignore all SMTP mail then why would a spamer use the new system. So we end up paying for a service we now get for free AND we'd have to rebuild the entire e-mail system from scratch. As some people would refuse to play along with this tax scam you'd effectively devide the internet into 2 groups.There is NO WAY to force the internet to do anything and regular users would not sign up to avoid getting taxed.The SPF system would not elimate spam but it would flag any email that is using a forged email header. Almost 95% of all UCE has fake header info. For me 100% of all my spam falls into this catagory. Assuming everybody that is legit uses the New DNS records I(or my POP server) could set a spam filter to dump all email that fails the SPF test. If the majority of a users spam falls into the same catagory as mine does and if they adopt the same filter methods then spam would die. This is a big set of "IFs" but spam is such a problem that most users will adopt somekind of spam filter and more and more ISPs (who are bearing the brunt of this) are seting up optional filters for the end users. Some even have filters in place that the end user has no control over just to weed out the garbage. AT&T recently begain to filter ALL mail that didn't come from a list of known list of IP numbers. They sent e-mail out to anyone that emails them to send in a whitelist of IP numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be impossible to charge for email without ditching the entire current email system.  ANYBODY can run a smtp server, you don't need a fixed IP, nor a DNS record, or any other traceable function.  If I can't trace it how can I bill it!  Unless you propose to block all SMTP mail or just ignore all SMTP mail then why would a spamer use the new system.  So we end up paying for a service we now get for free AND we'd have to rebuild the entire e-mail system from scratch.  As some people would refuse to play along with this tax scam you'd effectively devide the internet into 2 groups.There is NO WAY to force the internet to do anything and regular users would not sign up to avoid getting taxed.
The internet runs because the backbone companies provide the hardware to make it so. They could act as the chokepoint. Yes, you can put up your own SMTP server, but if you don't pay for the email you send, then your mail won't be forwarded. I see this working just like the present day telephone system here in the USA. I can use any long distant provider, I can use a 10-10 provider, in most places, I can use who I want to deliver my local calls. Regardless and despite many thousands of possible companies involved in these processes, I still wind up getting billed for however I make a call. Why couldn't a similar infastructure be implemented for the net?Yes, it might require extensive modifications. But that's just something that has to be dealt with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{rant on}Yes, this is an open discussion forum.  Any yes, it's easy to criticize but much more difficult to contribute positively to any discussion by giving equal thought and attention to possible solutions.  This is a problem I've noticed throughout our society.  If you listen closely to the media and to people around you, you'll find that much of the time, all that's talked about are "THE PROBLEMS".  Few want to focus on solutions to "THE PROBLEMS" because that requires more thought and is a lot harder proposition.  Which is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today, not only vis-a-vis the spam problem but with just about every other important issue in our society.{/rant off}  (this should this be a valid HTML tag :blink: )
So, basically you are saying that the only people that should (can?) post are people that have a solution to the problem?Very well. I hope everyone else follows suit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
{rant on}Yes, this is an open discussion forum.  Any yes, it's easy to criticize but much more difficult to contribute positively to any discussion by giving equal thought and attention to possible solutions.  This is a problem I've noticed throughout our society.  If you listen closely to the media and to people around you, you'll find that much of the time, all that's talked about are "THE PROBLEMS".  Few want to focus on solutions to "THE PROBLEMS" because that requires more thought and is a lot harder proposition.  Which is why we find ourselves in the mess we are in today, not only vis-a-vis the spam problem but with just about every other important issue in our society.{/rant off}  (this should this be a valid HTML tag :blink: )
So, basically you are saying that the only people that should (can?) post are people that have a solution to the problem?Very well. I hope everyone else follows suit.
No, not at all. Well thought-out criticism of an idea or proposal is essential to expose its weak points, and therefore is always welcomed in any give and take discussion. I was simply pointing out a common problem that too often people are quick on the draw to attack a proposal but they don't have any solution to offer as an alternative. Therefore, we wind up without any solution at all. I was hoping this would help you to put on your thinking cap and contribute your viewpoint on how we might solve this problem.75% of the daily email activity these days is spam related! 75%!!! Even though you have not had the misfortune to experience much of this, you and others in the same boat are still affected indirectly by this deluge. Everyone will benefit if a solution to this problem can be found...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How do you account for webmail?  What happens to Hotmail/yahoo/etc?
I'm going to quote myself, to bring up something I mentioned earlier that was passed over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...